Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) Discussions

Apparently, my local Toro dealer says that this year's 421Q model comes with a B&S 4-stroke engine.  He said that this engine is more powerful than the 2-stroke R-tek engine that is in the 221Q. 

He started the 421Q 4 stroke engine.  It sounded fairly quiet and was relatively vibration free smooth running.  Definitely quieter and smoother than the Honda GX160 engine.  I was impressed.  Good job B&S.

He didn't start the 221Q 2 stroke engine.  Stated that it had no gas in tank.  Either that could be true or he didn't want to stink up the showroom with exhaust fumes.

Has anyone used both engines on the Toro 221Q and 421Q and can provide honest report?  Which engine is more powerful and can do the job of moving heavy snow better?

I know there are folks here are dyed in the wool 2-stroke fans, you know who you are.  Barring the 4 stroke heavier weight, complexity, and hassle of oil change, none of these draw backs are really a concern to me, I can go either way.  No big deal to change oil or mix oil in gasoline.  The 421Q felt slightly heavier in the front, but not enough to make a difference.  I won't be lifting either snowblower up and down the bed of a pickup truck so weight difference of 10 lbs isn't an issue. 

If both engines are operating at the same rpm, the main differences that will effect power output will be displacement and compression. The 221 has a 141 cc two cycle engine. Toro does not state the h.p. nor torque specs. However, I have an Echo lawn mower with an engine of the same displacement. At 2800 rpm, it's rated a 4.5 h.p. If you increase rpm to 3600 (28.5%) that should give you an approximate increase in power provided both the Echo and B&S engines have similar compression. Chances are that being engines of similar applications, for this purpose, the difference in compression wouldn't make that much of a difference. So, a rough estimate would be that 4.5 h.p. times 28.5% would extrapolate to 5.78 h.p. Not bad for a 140cc engine. Now, if you wanted to adjust the governor to allow the engine to spin at 4000 rpm, that would give you approximately 6.42 h.p. I've had my Echo lawn mower engine spinning at 6500 rpm. I did a mathematical calculation to determine h.p. According to the formulae, the engine was putting out close to 12 h.p. So, as you can see, the previously mentioned estimates, are likely conservative. The 421 has a 163cc engine. Power specification isn't listed for this one either. So, I'm left with only one way to estimate it's output. I have a 196cc engine and a 208cc engine. Both are rated at 6 h.p. running at 3600 rpm. Now if we use straight mathematics, the 163cc engine has 30% less displacement than the 196cc engine. If we do a direct 30 reduction in h.p., that would put the 163cc engine at an estimated 4.2 h.p. There is one difference between the two engine types that must also enter the comparison. That is torque. Four stroke engines make more torque. With engines of this size, we would have to wonder if the difference is significant. I really don't know. We do know that two stroke maintenance is virtually non-existent. Mix fuel and change the spark plug every five years. Done. Four strokes require oil changes and valve adjustments. Given the simplicity of maintenance and easily gained power potential of the two stroke, I know which engine I'd choose.

Borat,

Thanks for your insight on the engines.   I don't intend on changing the governor to get extra hp out of the engines, real concerned about shortening the life of the engines as well as overstressing the overall design of the snowblower.  The 2 stroke lower maintenance and no oil change is appealing.  Although oil change on a small engine is simple.  However, I do like the quieter noise level of the 4 stroke.

I just spoke to another Toro dealer and he said that the 4 stroke engine is a Chinese made clone of the Honda GX160 engine.  That would explain why I was so impressed by it's quietness and vibration.  Perhaps the engine mounting on the Toro chasis and a different muffler made it seems better than the actual Honda GX160 engine.  Of course, I am comparing the new clone engine to a Honda engine that's on a 10 year old snowblower.

Can anybody confirm that the 4 stroke engine is a Chinese clone and not a Briggs and Stratton engine?

From my limited experience with Chinese OPE engines, I noticed that the manufacturers go big on their mufflers and like to use rubber dampened engine mounts. Particularly on their direct drive applications, generators and pressure washers for instance. Not sure if they use rubber engine mounts on belt driven equipment. Yeah, most people don't like to tinker with their engines. Particularly if it's on brand new equipment. Running a two cycle at 4000 rpm is barely past idle for those things. They love to spin. That wouldn't be a concern for me. Look at chain saws, trimmers etc. running at 12000+ rpm in some cases. They hold up for ever at those speeds. How it would effect the rest of the machine is an unknown. That's for sure. But, I'd be willing to find out if I wasn't too satisfied with stock power output.

"Can anybody confirm that the 4 stroke engine is a Chinese clone and not a Briggs and Stratton engine?"
Yes, it is a Chinese manufactured engine made by Loncin. Not all engines made in China are clones of Honda's.
The 2-cycle version  on the 221Q is a Briggs R-tek engine.

clint wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear if this engine is a clone of the Honda GX160?

Hi aa335 - The Engine in the new Toro 421 is a Loncin engine.  This engine is not a clone of the Honda motor, though like all OHV 4-strokes it will have some similarity.  Briggs and Stratton does make some great OHV engines, too.  (They also make some lousy ones too, but then so does Honda i.e. the GC series motors)

I have not run the new Toro 421, but I have used last years model which came with a tecumseh 4 stroke.  The 221 was considerably more powerful.  

Based on the specs of the new 421 engine, and as Borat pointed out, there is no reason to expect that the new 421 is more powerful than the 221.  I'll readily admit that I'm a die hard 2 stroke fan, but I got that way for a reason.  And certainly I don't post here to push an agenda - merely to offer an opinion on something that I know about and enjoy talking about.  Many other discussions take place here that I learn alot from, so I make it a point to add knowledge and value where I have it.    The 221 engine (the R*tek) was also used on Lawn Boy mowers (known as the Duraforce - its a reed-valve version of the same engine).  Amongst lawn care people, this engine is known as the most powerful 21" walk-behind mower made.  It is SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful than anything else I've run, including even the fantastic Kawasaki full pressure lube FJ180v 4 stroke (the best 4 stroke mower motor made in my opinion)  In the 221, the Duraforce/R*Tek really shines.  In fact, in my fleet I even have a super-rare Toro 726te which is a 2-stage machine that uses the R*Tek motor.  Run back to back last weekend with a Craftsman Professional 11/32 (same snow, same driveway) the 726te bogged less and threw farther.  Point being the R*tek is a very underrated motor, and for that I love it.  They wouldn't have put it on a big 2-stage if it wasnt powerful and torquey enough to handle it.  

The bit about torque isn't completely true.  Torque is a result of compression and displacement.  The difference in displacement between the 2 engines is very insignificant, and with the 2 stroke making power every revolution, you'll find that it makes more torque as well.  Now, compared to a 305cc 4 stroke will it make more torque?  No.  But within its range (140-210 or so cc 4 strokes) I'd bet the duraforce/r*tek is the king of the hill.

The push for the 4 stroke is purely and simply marketing.  I've made a few posts on the "other board" detailing some of the mumbo-jumbo behind this.  I think you'll be happy if you buy either the 421 or the 221 - they are the best singe-stage units you can buy, but certainly I think the 221 is the superior unit as it both costs less AND is more powerful.  And although it doesn't matter much to you as stated, its lighter, simpler, and requires less maintenance. 

Here are some pictures of the aforementioned 726te Snowblower - its a really cool, rare machine.

Now that's a clean snowblower that's never seen a flake of snow or a garage that never seen a car.

Nice snowblower, even though it has quite a bit of plastic, I kinda like the Darth Vader theme.  Very nice and clean cable management.  When was this 726te in production?  This used the same engine in the 221Q?

Thanks for a good writeup Superbuick.   I'm almost convinced to get a 221Q as 2010 will be the last year for 2 stroke to be sold in USA.  Although I tempted to give that 4 stroke Loncin engine a try.  Also the 421Q also has a larger cowl housing that allows me to repower the chassis with another engine of my choice if the Tim Allen bug bites, say a Kawasaki or Subie engine.

Thanks aa335. The plastic is just a housing over the engine - seems to make it ultra quiet as it is lined with insulating foam. Its actually more like Glass Reinforced Plastic as opposed to straight plastic. The material is almost identical to that of the inner fenders on my Corvette. Plastic chutes don't bother me one bit - in fact I like them over steel chutes. They are more slippery than a painted steel chute (at least one that hasn't been waxed). Not to say there's anything wrong with an all-metal chute - I just don't see it as a "sign of quality" per se (though alot of really nice Ariens and Simplicitys have them).

As far as I can tell, they made the 2 stroke PowerMax for 3 years. 04-06. The first two years it was called the PowerMax 726te and then the name was switched to the PowerMax 6000 but nothing else on the unit changed. The engine is identical to that in my 221QR - the carbs and jetting are the same as well (I've taken them both apart to look for differences and found nothing) The chassis on the 421 and 221 are the same - but you are right about the plastic housing - the 421 is bigger to accommodate the OHV engine. I've seen the newest 421 in person and it almost seems like the housing for this year is bigger than last year's. I'd have to see it side by side with a Tecumseh powered 421 to be sure though. Like I said - either way you can't go wrong - they're great machines. I'm just a fan of the whole more power for less money thing ;-)

Next time it snows, I'll make a video for you of the machine working - I'll put it to the test as best I can so you can see why I like it. Didn't you say you have a Honda 6/21 single stage? Thats also a pretty awesome/legendary 4-stroke single stage (what with the GX motor and much sturdier construction than the current Honda single-stage junk).

Superbuick,

Thanks for all of the wonderful information on the 221 and 421.  Those photos of your 726 are awesome.  I wish they still made that machine.

So, the Chinese manufactorer is Loncin?  I've heard they make good engines.  A neighbour of mine just got the little powerlite with the 87 cc 4 stroke engine.  I'm guessing that's also a loncin engine.  He used a few times.  Started up well, had a steady growl but the unit would bog down in about 5 cm of wet snow mixed with freezing rain.  Guess that's to be expected with such a tiny engine.  My local dealer said the 2 strokes outsell the 4 strokes this year by at least 3:1. 

How do you find the 2 stroke engine to handle wet, heavy snow and the stuff the plow leaves at the EOD?

Why didn't Toro gets Briggs to make them a 4 stroke engine for their single stage units?  Doesn't husqvarana, simplicity, etc use a 148 ccc 4 stroke engine from brigss on their single stage units?

superbuick wrote:
2010 is the last year for the 2 stroke engine?  That's a great shame.  Will toro only offer the 4 stroke next year?  If so, I might just have to get one of the few ones left.

superbuick wrote:
I had a chance to take apart a Honda HS520 and  found it to be inferior in construction quality compared to the Toro.  Compared to my 10 year old Honda HS621, well, there isn't anything the last 10 years that equal it in quality and robustness.  The GX160 engine is a gem.  I didn't realize how powerful this engine is until I push the snowblower into heavy deep snow.

This weekend, I saw my neighbor tackle wet heavy snow that the snow plow puts on next to the curb.  It was clogged as nothing was coming out of the chute.  I didn't expect the clogging to occur but was impressed with the power of the 2 stroke engine that kept the auger spinning and spitting the snow out in front..  I was using my HS621 removing the same type of snow.  There was no clogging on the HS621.  It threw the wet heavy snow about 6-8 feet onto the parkway, which is all the distance I need, as I did not want the wet snow to go any further and land on the sidewalk.

Overall, in my honest opinion, the Toro 221 / 421 is a best performing snowblower today, and the best single stage snowblower in the US market.  I like how balanced and easy to maneuver it around.  The rubber auger and the inverted funnel housing is designed with maximum efficiency, and it has the most powerful engine to boot.  The throwing distance is impressive.  Pivoting scraper is a great idea and good implementation.  The Quick Shoot is icing on the cake, my favorite feature actually.  Hats off to Toro for an making excellent single stage snowblower.  This is why I am thinking about getting this particular Toro, even though I already have an excellent Honda single stage.

Bump, TTT.

Will the 221 or 421 take a plowed driveway down to bare tar or is it going to leave a lot behind? Also how good is it at handling EOD? I know it's a single stage but I'm looking at havingthedriveway plowed then using a smaller machine to clean up. But the EOD will still get filled in because the city plows keep coming long after the guy plows our driveway. Any thoughts? Oh and I'm not real keen on 2 strokes but yeah I guess I could mix up gas for my wife beforehand.

Steve_Cebu wrote:
Yes, both of the Toro will clean the pavement well, same rubber paddle design, different engines.  It's like a power squeegee.  Although if the snow is packed and driven over by tire tracks, it will not come off easily.  I use an metal ice scraper for this.  EOD is possible, the soft wet stuff does take time though.  My neighbor has the 221.  It performs great and he also know how to use it well.  He also clean around the mailbox so that the mail truck doesn't get stuck.  It's a little slow handling that wet heavy snow, but it can do it fine.  I did see it clogged with heavy wet snow once time, a little surprising, but  all the other times, it has worked fine.

Although for the EOD pile that is higher than the opening of the single stage, or when it is hard and crusty, I would use a 2 stage to tackle that.  The metal auger and the wheel drive does most of the work.  You can use a single stage, but it will take longer and require more work on the operator.

2 stroke are not really an issue, mix up a gallon or two of gasoline and that should last a while.  Just use a separate gas can and label it for the 2 stroke.

I don't recommend the electric Toro 1800 though.  Seem too lightweight to get anything done.  The molded plastic auger will not wipe the pavement as well as rubber paddle.  It may not make contact with the pavement at all.

I also don't like to deal with stiff frozen electrical cords and dragging that sludge/slush muddy salt back in the garage.  If you must go with something this small, consider the Power Clear 180.  It's a small 4 stroke snowblower for just a little more money than the 1800 + outdoor extension cord.  It is pretty low to the ground so your wife may be able to pullstart it.  Give it a go.

aa335 wrote:
Well, I saw a Toro Snow Commander and this thing is well built, very heavy.

I wonder how well these things perform compared to a compact 24" two stage machines.

Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't it be easier to scrape residual snow off the driveway with a wide snow shovel or ice rink shovel? I'm having trouble understanding how a single stage snow thrower would be easier to use to clean up what the two stage left behind. After all, there's just a skim of snow left behind which I find very easy to shove to the side with a rink shovel.

We have decided to buy the Toro 1028 *again*. The dealer we wanted to buy from same guy as the first time but he couldn't deliver it until after the holidays, we are getting a storm this weekend so we bought from another place. My wife was also concerned that they might still be mad at us for returning the first one. We will buy a couple of shovels for the slush. I tried the Toro 180 in the showroom pushing it back and forth. No idea how it blows snow but with no real self propulsion it seems like pushing a 50+ lb. shovel. They didn't have the bigger 221 or 421 and they don't ever use the 221/421 numbers they have dealer #'s.t They want $400 for the 180 and that seems a bit steep, and they can't get any 221/421's. I saw a push shovel online that angles left or right. That seems like it would be good enough to clear away slush by pushing it into a row and then blowing it with the 2 stage once it's 3-4 inches high. Toro single stages look like they would be awesome for walkways and decks.

I think Steve mentioned that his plow guy left snow on the pavement.

My 2 stage scraper bar is set at 1/4" and doesn't leave too much behind.   This works well as it doesn't catch on the gaps between concrete.

With some sunshine, this thin layer of snow usually melts during the day.

Although I usually followup with a single stage if it is later during the day when the snow is soggy and I'm expecting refreezing during the night.

Steve_Cebu wrote:
I hope that the Toro 1028 work out for your wife.  Funny that your dealer doesn't use the 221/421 numbers.  It's on the snowblower.  This is easier for the consumer than the their 5 digit product code.

The Toro 180 is $369 and $399 for the recoil and electric start.  I think it's reasonable compared to the $619/$719 for the 221/421.  The Toro 180 will pull itself forward when the spinning auger makes contact with the pavement or snow.

If they don't have anymore 221/421 and can consider a Toro 2450 at $499, basically a 221 without the Quickshoot and Pivoting Scraper Bar features.  I kind of like this model since it looks just about right.  The 221/421 looks a little bloated.  :)  I know, it's a snowblower!

superbuick wrote:
An excellent review, however some clarification is in order. Yes, compression and displacement affects torque, but not that much in this size range. Comparison is not possible with these two figures alone.

Much more significant is the engine's stroke (period that power is applied to the crankshaft) and the rotating mass of the power train (crankshaft, flywheel, etc). This applies equally to 2 or 4-strokes. A longer stroke, all else being equal, will always produce more torque than a shorter stroke. The fact that a 2-stroke has one power stroke per revolution does not translate into more torque, since the power PERIOD is shorter. A 2-stroke must rev higher to compensate, and this tends to bias the power band toward the high end. Not a problem with something like a chain saw, but a snowblower is often pushed to the limit. The combination of longer stroke (2-strokes are more limited in stroke length) and heavier powertrain is what gives the 4-stroke it's torque advantage. It's a trade-off, for sure. Added weight and more moving parts come with the package.

That said, I like 2-stroke engines just fine. Have several two-bangers in my garage, and love them all. Retired a Toro CCR3000 awhile back, and would still be using it if not for worn-out main bearings (common with high-revving engines). To be fair, I thrashed the little Toro way beyond it's limitations, and it still held together for better than 10 years. Quality is the watchword when comparing engines - not displacement, horsepower, or torque. All these figures can be manipulated by the manufacturer in their favor. A quality 2-stroke engine will beat a chintzy 4-stroke every time - and visa-versa.

Like it or not, the great white fathers seem intent on banishing 2-stroke engines from the kingdom. As more 4-stroke snowblowers, snowmobiles, and leaf blowers come to market, the discussion is likely to shift from 2-stroke vs 4-stroke to who produces the best 4-stroke for an intended purpose. There are some awfully sweet small 4-strokes available right now, and that's encouraging.

In that light, I'd like to add that I've used a Toro 421QE for two seasons now, and it seems to outperform my older (higher HP) Toro 2-stroke unit. I have one of the first generation PowerClears, so I'm stuck with the primative Tecumseh L-head engine. Noisy, smelly, rattles and vibrates like a washing machine - not at all what I expect from Toro.  But, it gets the job done and hardly ever stalls. I'm very much interested in hearing how much better (if any) the new engine performs. Also like the idea of the new pivoting scraper - sounds real good in theory. With a quality engine installed, this paddle blower would rank at the top. As it is, it's still pretty darn close.

Now, if only Toro could only do something about the price...

In the end, your decision should be based upon real-world data, and not advertising hype. Nothing wrong with preferring a 2-stroke engine over a 4-stroke, as long as it does the job you want it to do. Both types have strong and weak points. For cold-weather operations, I like the 4-banger. For day-in, day-out thrashing in the heat, a solid 2-stroke is hard to beat. Your mileage may vary, which is why boards like this are invaluable.

One more observation: I don't think the push for 4-stroke engines is completely due to marketing wonks. They didn't CREATE a market, but seem to be testing the waters prior to the day when that's the only option. Who knows when that day will arrive? When it does, though, doesn't it make sense to have your product in the pipeline ready to go? If GM, Ford, and Chrysler had figured this out in 1975, they wouldn't be where they are today. Just my 2-cents.

The motors in the 421 and the 221, however, rotate at the same RPM (3600 rpms give or take). And in these small applications, the difference in stroke is just as significant/insignificant as the compression and displacement. The info you present for 2 strokes revving higher to compensate for stroke limitations is not a universal dynamic. Look at the ultra low-revving 2 strokes in HUGE oil tankers, or trains, for example, where torque is the only thing that matters. I've run both blowers back to back (your version of the 421 with the tecumseh) and the 221 is simply more powerful. Its not an insult to the 421 or a superiority statement for all 2 strokes, but in this case, the R*Tek is better suited for the task at hand. Not massively so, but enough to be noticeable. For a great illustration of 2 stroke torque, check out some videos of lawn-boy mowers in heavy, heavy grass. They just burble right along at 3600rpm without a care in the world :-) Your 421 is an awesome snowblower, however, either way, and its design (shared with the 221) is the current "top of the heap" for single stage blowers. Also, I think this is a great and interesting discussion that we're having, and I hope others can learn from it as they read it :)

This thread is getting interesting.  The Toro 221/421 chassis is a good design with either engines.  I'm still on the fence about which one to get, so if this discussion goes on further, it will provide me and others with an informed decision.

My neighbor has a 221 and in heavy snow, I can hear the RPM drop quickly under load.  However, if he eases up on the snow load, the RPM spins quickly back up.  I noticed that the distance and the amount of snow diminishes quickly as the RPM drops.  To me, while the 221 2-stroke has power to propel snow at pretty good distance, it seems not to have as much torque. 

In comparison, I have a 10 year old Honda HS621 with a 4 stroke GX160 engine.  While this snowblower doesn't throw as far as the Toro with medium to light snow, when pushed into the heavy snow, the torque seems to be there.  I can hear the engine tone loading up but heavy snow is still coming out at a good speed and volume.  So while the Toro 221 excel at medium to light snow, the Honda HS621 hunkers down better at heavy snow.  Now I am comparing two different chassis and auger design so take it with a grain of salt.

Superbuick has mentioned that he had used both the 221 and 421.  His observation is that the 2 stroke on the 221 was more powerful.  However, I have read from another person's observation that own both models and he observed quite the opposite, the 4-stroke 421 threw snow a little bit farther and does better in wet snow.  So far, these two are the only two head to head comparisons.

Now my question to Superbuick is this.  I actually like the Toro 2450 the best.  It has a slim athletic look to it.  (a la BMW E46)  The 2450 chassis is perfect for the Rtek engine, not oversized to accomodate a 4 stroke engine.  The 221/421(BMW E90) is fat in comparison.  In fact, it is fatter than my HS621.  Since you have both, any chance you can tell me if there's enough room underneath the plastic cover to transplant the 221 chute onto the 2450?    If you have pictures of the Quick Chute mechanism under the cover, I'd appreciate if you post them.  I also follow your posts in the "other" forum.  Good information and awesome pictures.  Love those Lawnboys.

superbuick wrote:
Good points, all - except for the one above. That one was was a little over the top, eh?

Since I haven't used the 221, It would be presumptuous to say one model is significanly better than the other.  My point was that low-end torque is very important in this particular application. Following your line of thinking, one has to wonder why the the majority of two-stage models use bigger, heavier 4-stroke engines. Wouldn't a lighter, more "powerful" engine be preferable?

The answer is obvious: The blowers we're discussing are a compromise of light weight, size, and maneuverability over brute force. Weight is one of the the crowning glories of the 2-stroke - it's the obvious choice for small OPE. If you're like me, though, you often push your equipt beyond it's design limits. My 421 performs better than expected in this respect - that's all I'm saying. For comparison, my old CCR3000 (similar size, with the superb Suzuki engine) was not as forgiving in the wet, packed snow as this model. In light powder, though, both units are outstanding.

If I were to give someone advice, I would say (as you did) that either the 221 and 421 will put a smile on your face - especially at a discount.

If weight isn't a concern and you're tired of mixing fuel, the 421 deserves a serious look. With the upgraded engine, this could become a Honda-killer. If you demand light weight, your needs are modest, or you just prefer 2-strokes, by all means save your money and go with the 221. Either model comes with the slick chute director, and is available w/electric start if needed. Toro's two-year warranty is icing on the cake.

My summation of the 421 comes after many hours behind the bar. For the record, Ariens, Simp, and Honda all make competing products that should be on your short list as well. Toro makes great products, but they tend to be significantly more expensive. Buy wisely - and be careful out there.

oldcrow wrote:
I thought it was quite good!

The 4 strokes work great, but they are in predominant use because of legislation, not superiority.  The simple economics of making a 2 stroke (much cheaper to manufacture) vs a 4 stroke would mean they'd be offered to lower the price point if it wasn't for regulation.  In the 2 stage applications, a 2 or a 4 stroke will work equally well.

Look at Detroit Diesels (2 strokes).  They were legislated out of existence.  Did they have drawbacks? Sure, just like any design will, but there is a reason the military still to this day uses them (they are still available new for the military only).  Simplicity, power, smaller size, and rock solid reliability.

I, like you, also have the better part of 2 decades behind the bars of a Toro single stage, and though my use of the Tecumseh-powered 421 was very limited (about an hour total over the course of 2 storms) I find the 221QR to be the better of the 2.  Enough to make a difference to someone who prefers a 4 stroke? No, but enough to make a difference to me.  I don't think the "mixing gas" argument is realistic or fair.  As a 2 stroke user, you know that mixing gas is as simple as making a cup of Swiss Miss Hot Chocolate (easier actually), and its about 200x simpler than changing the oil on a 4 stroke piece of OPE (not that doing that is difficult either)

The design of the 421/221?  I couldnt agree with you more.  It is the top dog on single stage snowblowers, by a long margin.  Simplicity, Ariens (though they dont make them anymore), briggs, craftsman, mtd, and honda all offer single stages that are, put simply, inferior to the Toro Power Curve design. 

One more thing though, about those 2 strokes and 2 stages.....





I'm happy to report they work superbly on a 2 stage platform!

Yup, I've seen that two-stage 2-banger, it's a pretty machine indeed. Would have liked to take one around the block. When you start getting into the 7-10 HP range, though, the size advantage of the 2-stroke diminishes a bit.

Brother. I gotta admire your tenacity!  If Toro is looking for a national sales rep - they could do a lot worse.

Me, I'd be happy with either 21" model - but I'm still glad I picked the one with the rat motor. Long as you understand that I'm not a 2-stroke basher.

Oh, I don't mind mixing up fuel that much. It can get sloppy (especially in the cold), but so can eating a plate of lasagne. What I mind is the 5 different containers I keep on hand for all the various ratios required. Yup, I've got a lot of 2-stroke toys

It's kind of like the remote control thing - two remotes isn't so bad, they fit on your side table just fine. Three is a liitle more difficult, and four becomes a pain in the arse.

Unlike remotes, though, I don't have the option of purchasing a "universal' mixture that will work for all OPE. You must know how critical your fuel mixture is when you race in competition. A gnat's hair off could spell 2nd place. Granted, OPE is not so demanding - but mixture is still a biggie. Doesn't take being off by much to send a piston through your crankcase at a 55:1 ratio. How do I know that? Don't ask! Folks who are new to 2-strokes need to know things like this, IMHO. Everybody's got a different comfort level.

Have to take you to task on your comment about 4-strokes being "legislated" into existence, amigo. Maybe you misspoke, but these little buggers have been around a long time - long before there was any EPA, DEQ, or Consumer  Protection Agency. They proliferated for one reason alone - people bought them, people liked them. Ah, the good ol' days...   ...just trying to keep it real.

I'll cut you some slack, though. I'm assuming that you meant to say that post-Y2K 4-strokes on small snowblowers have been the result of new laws. That's probably true, although they still only represent a fraction of the total units sold. I'll be more upset when the black helicopters following me ditch their turboshafts for a 4-stroke. Won't be any fun if I can outrun them on a YZ-250.         Sorry...the devil made me do it.

BTW - and this isn't directed at you, superbuick - those who harp on the "complicated" nature of a small 4-stroke engine need to tear one down before they speak. Jeez, I've rebuilt or repaired more of those puppies than I can count - and I'm no master technician. The extra moving parts are not many, compared to a 2-banger. The carbuerator is no more complex. The crank assy differs little from a 2-stroke, nor does the jug. The cylinder head and cam are the two major differences. That, and the fact that it carries it's own oil supply (which is an advantage to some). All in all, an aircooled 4-stroke is a pretty simple mill. If you're concerned about longevity, than for pity's sake perform regular maintenance. No secret there. These days, reliabilty isn't much of an issue with engines this size - 2 or 4-stroke. You'll be fine with either one - if you take care of it.

Definitely right about the size advantage. The 141cc 2 stroke on that 2 stager is smaller than a Tecumseh snow king or briggs ohv snow motor, but on a big chassis, it doesnt matter very much.

I don't think I would rep for Toro - I'm not a huge fan of alot of their products - mainly just the single stages, and like you mentioned, they are very expensive (almost as bad as Honda 2 stages)

About the fuel mixture thing, we certainly adjust the mixture based on conditions when racing the karts, but those motors are 125ccs putting out in excess of 30hp, and the fuel/oil mixture there has the added responsibility of cooling the motor, particularly during the constant revving up/down under heavy loads as we pull out of corners and upshift. A snowblower, or even trimmer/blower, isn't really under that kind of up and down load, and certainly not nearly as high strung, so I'm actually comfortable using a single mix in all of my 2 stroke OPE. I run Opti-2 at about 70:1 (versus the recommended 100:1 ratio, because I like the mental comfort of having a little extra in there, even if it means I don't reap the benefit of the lean mixture in terms of less smoke and more gas to make power with) Normally the little high revving chainsaw/trimmer/blower motors demand ash to serve as a lubricant at high RPMs they run at, and the low revving "torquey" 2 strokes in snowblowers and mowers want a TCW3 oil (made for well-cooled, torquey/big 2 strokes in outboards and jetskis) because they are so well cooled, particularly in the snow environment, and they run extremely "relaxed". A 141cc snowblower motor making 7hp is a whole different world than a 125cc making 30+hp (you obviously know this, I'm saying it for the integrity of the post) The trimmers/blowers/saws are somewhere in the middle in terms of being high-strung. After a year of using the Opti-2 at this ratio I'm very happy. (echo trimmer, echo blower, weedeater edger, 3 Toro snowblowers, 2 lawnboys, and a Radio Controlled Boat with a 4hp Zenoah in it) You ought to give it a shot - it might simplify your gas mix hassles.

I have taken alot of 4 stroke motors apart too btw - big ones and small ones! The governors tend to be more complicated, and they have more parts, but both types of motors are extremely simple and reliable (i.e. not designed by german auto makers )

This is an awesome discussion and I'm enjoying it - thanks for posting here in this thread - I hope others gain some insight from our OPE-hobby inspired banter!

My bad - I thought you said you raced bikes. Can't comment on karts, but I figure they're a close relative of OPE. 300 HP @125cc? Holy steroid, Batman! Could have used your help when I was trying to max out my old Wombat. Nice explanation just the same - should help some folks out.

I've had good luck with several Klotz products, and some product from Temko that I can't recall. One bike in particular (Yammy 360) literally screamed on the Klotz diet. To be honest, though, any quality oil (including marine) worked for me. Tolerances were tight, and I had my own special ritual for tweaking the mix ratio. I might think different if I had a sponsor, though. Not a big fan of Seafoam, either, but I've used it without any ill effects. For OPE, the manufacturer's recommendations should suffice (if you follow them, that is).

These weekend warrior engines are pretty forgiving critters. It's amazing how much neglect /abuse they can take and still soldier on. I've become pretty bad about regular maintenance as I get older, something that my racing bikes would not have tolerated for long. I suppose the ease of disassembly and repair has lulled me into a "never happen to me" mindset. Just the same, there are some things I won't fudge on. Oil is one of them - be it 2 or 4-stroke. Good quality oil (and oil changes) helps decrease your chances of catastrophe significantly. Now, get out there and push some powder!

If I may, I'd like to offer my opinion concerning some of oldcrow's comments. First and most importantly is your concerns for having multiple fuel mixtures. Not to be a smart ass but, being very familiar with two cycle engines for a very long time, I feel obligated to advise anyone who wants to know, that having multiple containers with various ratios is totally unnecessary. I have machines that require the following ratios: chainsaws - 32:1, ice auger - 25:1, brush trimmers, leaf blowers, lawn mower - 50:1, racing dirt bike - 25:1, I mix one container at 30:1 and run it in everything listed. A two cycle engine will be sensitive to the oil to fuel ratio only if the oil is UNDER the recommended ratio by quite a margin or ridiculously over. Actually if the mix has way too much oil, it will probably not start and if it does, it will not rev up. Having a greater oil component will not damage an engine and in most cases will deliver better lubrication and power. Let's not forget that modern engines and lubrications are far better now than they were 30 years ago. An engine that called for a ratio of 25:1 back then can run with no problem on modern oil at a ratio of 40:1 or even 50:1. It's not uncommon to see two cycle oils that recommend 100:1 ratios. Regarding your comments about power to size ratio becoming less significant when the engines get larger. This is a bit confusing to me. A two cycle OPE engine will make more power per cc. regardless of the size. It's simply the nature of the beast. As far as I'm concerned, the two cycle engine is superior in OPE applications in just about every aspect other than possibly fuel consumption. I will admit that larger two cycle engines will burn more fuel than an equivalent four stroke. However, anything under 100ccs in size would be insignificant.

Yup, Borat is right. I choose to store my mix in multiple containers - it is not mandatory. Sorry if I was unclear about that. I have a small junkyard of 2-stroke equipment, many of which are long in the tooth. Most small engines are pretty tolerant of a rich mixture, but the finnicky factor does vary widely. I also have a stable of ancient dirt bikes, and they can be VERY stubborn regarding oil. It's just more convenient for me to have several blends pre-mixed on the shelf - up to a point. Holdover from competition days, I suppose.

I'm glad you pointed out probably the most important point to remember: Too RICH is always better than Too LEAN. Like the man said, if you foul your plug or upset the carb balance, these are easy problems to remedy - but enough of a pain to teach you a valuable lesson. Sometimes, an overly-rich mixture can actually help a worn-out engine last a little longer - but that's another story.

Since we're not talking about engines that power airplanes, automobiles, or boats, no one is likely to die if something goes wrong. Hope nobody got scared away with all this esoteric banter.

Stay tuned: A budget RPG launcher for your Craftsman two-stage. Show that b*st*rd in the plow truck you mean business!

oldcrow wrote:

I live on a corner lot with sidewalks.  I have 4 piles to attack when the plow truck finish its business.  Two for the sidewalks, one for the driveway, and one for the mailbox.

I hate the piles that the plow truck leaves behind.  However, I like my plow truck guy.  My car is rear wheel drive with 5" ground clearance.  Without them plow trucks, the furthest I can go is end of driveway. 

Good discussion on the 2-smoke / 4-fart (I think).  It's quite informational and entertaining to read while waiting for the next big snow storm to arrive.  It's been 2+ weeks with no significant snow in my area. 

Yup, I guess we all have too much time on our hands, eh?

You realize I was only joshing about the plow truck, right? Where I live, it makes no difference if they plow the road or not. Just jump on the snowmobile and go.

Good sledding to all.

oldcrow: What kind of old bikes do you have packed away? Do you have some pics? Are you in the US or Canada? I'm asking because I have five vintage 1970s Yamaha RDs that I'm restoring. Just curious what you have.

oldcrow wrote:
Of course.  All in good company among OPE and combustion powered junkies.

borat wrote:
Borat: Thanks for asking. Here's a list of what's currently in my garage and barn. 2-strokes only, in running or rideable condition. Didn't include basket cases, used for parts and fabrication. I'm a pack rat, I'll freely admit.

Bultaco Persang 250, 1972
Bultaco Sherpa 350, 1975 (Sweet!)
H-D XS125, 1972 (Don't say it - it runs!)
CZ 250, 1973
Hodaka Wombat 125, 1972
Honda Mini-Trail 50, 1968 (Remember lusting after one?)
Husky D400 (The beast)
Kaw KX250, 1974
Ossa Phantom 175, 1974
Yammy YZ250, 1971-ish
Yammy YL-1 (100cc) Twinjet, 1966 (the old man - still putts!)

Favorite is the Taco 350 - but I love 'em all.

Best of luck with your RD projects - sounds like you're hooked. You wouldn't have one of the rare 5-speed versions, would you? 5-speed makes more sense for that bike. I rode an RD350 back in the early 70's, had a blast on it. Fair amount of frame flex, but very nimble and stable if you didn't go nuts. Smoothest 2-stroke twin on the planet (for it's day). And, it ran on mogas! Very popular scooter - you shouldn't have a hard time finding parts.

I'll see what pix I can dig up, or take some new ones. BTW, wife sez feel free to make me an offer. I say he who dies with the most toys wins. Any questions?

I live 60 minutes from the border, in northern Michigan - but I'm definitely a US citizen - eh?

aa335 wrote:
Who you calling a junkie?!!

I can quit whenever I want to...

...Done it dozens of times already.

So there!
    

oldcrow wrote:
Hehehe.  Sorry, I jumped the gun gun and lumped you in the same basket case.  Should have waited until you post your list of motorcycles, weed wackers, snowblowers, and snowmobiles....

Like they say, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.  Do you have a problem? 

Nice line up there oldcrow. Sounds like some sweet machines. I'm surprised with your comments about the RD350 frames flexing. They're pretty close to an exact knock off of their race frames of the day only a bit heavier and do-dad brackets on it. Maybe you had worn swing arm bushings or something. The bikes I have are rock solid and handle better than I'm capable of riding them. I do have a 1972 R5 which is the five speed pre- RD version. It's a 350cc engine without reed valves. The six speed tranny comes in handy if you have the power to use it. I've massaged an RD400 and an RD350 to make in the neighbourhood 50 rear wheel h.p. through air intake/carb mods, electronic ignition with programable timing, and efficient expansion chambers. If you thought the old RDs were quick, you'd love these old rockets. I'm working on putting a stock '74 RD350 back together. It's the brandy wine coloured model. Not going to hop that one up. When it's done, I'll be giving the R5 a good going over and possibly a few enhancements.

aa335 wrote:
Hmmmm, let's see - motorcycles, snowmobiles, leaf blower, chain saws, snowblowers, edger, carbide saw, water pump, lawnmowers, generator, ATV, donkey motor...

AHA!  I have no weed-wacker!

There you go - no problem here.
                    

borat wrote:
No museum pieces, but each one tells a story. Thanks.

It is possible that my RD had some damage when I bought it, but I looked it over pretty carefully and saw no obvious signs of abuse. These things were awfully forgiving about being layed down. I added several aftermarket pieces to the stock forks and frame, and replaced the swingarm bushings with roller bearings Overall, it handled quite nicely, until it was pressed hard into a turn.

The tubular swingarm wasn't state-of-the-art, but with a stiff set of Konis it was plenty tough enough for a street bike. In a straight line, I could stop it like a cat on a clothesline (brakes were excellent). But nothing seemed to help when I'd go into a hard turn (both sides) and snap back up - like on a switchback. I could literally feel the bike bend - no kidding - especially with the 16" rear. Came close to losing it several times when the rear would break and hop. Scary.

I was pretty crazy back then, and rode like a maniac. This was about the time that both Suzuki and Kawasaki came out with 700cc+ 2-stroke triples. CB750s, KZ900s, XS750s - it was a good time to be alive. Needless to say, some challenges were met better than others. But, I did my part.

That was one of my first road bikes, and I treated it like a thumper. Not surprising that she finally fell apart piece by piece. But, it remains one of my favorites. Since then, I've straddled everything from a Harley low-rider to a canyon racer. Yet, that little 350 was more fun then I've ever had with my clothes on. Gas consumption was terrible (for me, at least), but at 40c/gal who cared?

With the enhancements you speak of, your little buzzers should keep up with (or pass) any 750 on the road today. Thanks for the trip down Memory Ln, amigo. Ride on.

I started this thread a year ago.  I thought I ressurect it to bring closure to my decision.

"Has anyone used both engines on the Toro 221Q and 421Q and can provide honest report?  Which engine is more powerful and can do the job of moving heavy snow better?" 

This was the question I asked a year ago.  And today, I have the answer to my own question.

Well, my neighbor with the 221QR and I with the 421QE went out to clear the same snow this afternoon.  We both are anal and likes to clear the area in front of our mailboxes so that the mail truck can drive on and get close to the mail box.  This area is usually wet and heavy, and salt laden.  Today, this snow was slushy but in a toothpaste consistency. 

As usual, the 221Q was very strong and throws snow well.  But when it comes this type of snow, the rotor RPM would drop quickly and would not have enough velocity to push the snow up the chute.  The snow would just roll forward of the rotor.  The usual procedure was to back up, shake it a bit, and let the rotor build up speed again.

The 421Q was different, in the same snow, the rotor RPM also dropped, but it maintained a higher speed and was able to push the snow through the chute.  There is no rolling of snow forward of the rotor.  If I ram it too hard into heavy snow, the engine would stall.  In comparison, my 12 year old Honda HS621 is the champ in this kind of snow.  It has more torque and it can push more volume out of the chute, but at a shorter distance.  The rotor design does not allow any snow to roll forward.  The snow would either shoot out of the chute, or the engine would stall.

I was quite impressed with the 421Q and how is stacked up against the HS621 for this kind of test.

In medium and light weight snow, both the 221Q and 421Q are about equal in performance.  Both can throw the snow quite farther than the HS621, which is to be expected.  If you look at the rotor design, you can see the Toro is much more efficient.  The Toro is such a joy to use, fast, light and can be toss around easily.  The Quick Shoot feature is worth every penny.

As a side note, the Toro 221Q is a B&S 2 stroke 141cc engine.  The Toro 421Q is a Loncin 4 stroke 163cc engine.  And the Honda HS621 is Honda's own GX 4 stroke 160cc engine.

In all reality how much snow do these two models max out at?

In fresh snow, these single snowblowers can take on 18" of snow with no problems.  I just went through 18" of snow deposited by a plow at a sidewalk corner, but it does take longer and you need to work at it.  EOD with packed and crusty snow can be tacked with some help from a shovel, but you need a 2 stage metal auger to effectively cut through it. 

Yeah - I'm in the same general area as you -   aa335  - and got that heavy, wet snow today -  The 421QE still did a good job in that heavy stuff.

Instead of throwing the snow over 25' or so - it threw around half that distance - 12' to 15'  -  still an admiral job for the wet, heavy stuff.

Still impressed with how nice the quick chute control system works.

Alty,

I'm having so much fun with the 421Q that I hope to get more snow soon.  Looks like we're going on a few cold days without much precipitation.

In wet heavy stuff, the throwing distance drops down to 8 to 15 feet  That's not too bad.  It doesn't have enough power to loft this kind of snow over 6 foot banks.  That's fine with me, I'll just break out the 2 stage machine if I want to carve out a canyon. 

In preparation for the big one, I just leveled the EOD pile and widened my driveway apron by 8 feet.  :) .  Not with the 421Q of course, the other big red machine.  I needed a place to put my garbage and recyclin bins.